Featured Post


This essay is a very belated response to a " part 1 " published in February 2015. The gist of that essay was a response to a corre...

Monday, April 16, 2012


From time to time I've written essays taking issue with other online comics-critics.  Sometimes a lively if short cyber-argument ensues, as seen here. On one or two occasions, someone may give an essay of mine a respectful nod, as here.  And as little as I like the writings of Tom Spurgeon and Dirk Deppey, I must give both men props that they at least gave me a link apiece on their respective blogs, in spite of the fact that I'd publicly critiqued them-- which is more than good ol' Heidi McDonald has ever done on THE BEAT, though I've no idea if she was even aware of my critique of her.

However, to the best of my recollection Heidi still allow me to post links to my essays on THE BEAT (though I guess that could change if she reads this).  In general, most bloggers follow the same pattern: having said what they wanted to say, they usually allow dissenters to post links but don't care anything about getting into a prolonged argument. 

Scipio of THE ABSORBASCON is my first encounter with someone who apparently doesn't allow such links, however.  I didn't really expect him to engage the argument I expressed in GENRE-FENCES MAKE BAD THEORY.  I posted on his blog last week, simply notifying him of my disagreement and inviting him to respond if he chose, but I didn't really think that he would.

I did think, however, that he would allow the post to stand as written. But it would seem, half a week later now, that Scipio did not wish my notification to stand. 

Is it possible that it was simply a cyber-hiccup?  Maybe, but I'd never had problems posting there before.  Of course, I was never critiquing one of his essays in detail before, either.

Is it possible that Scipio has some rule against such links, that I never came across?  This too is possible, but again-- the fact that I was critiquing him in my link looms largely.

The world will little note or long remember extremely minor violations of blog-etiquette, of course.  I'm deleting my link to THE ABSORBASCON as a matter of course, but I'm sure that will have zero effect on his numbers.

Puzzled shrug.

Move on to the next victim.

ADDENDA TO THE ADDENDA: Just to define "blog-etiquette" a bit more neatly, I think it proper etiquette to let a post expressing polite disagreement stand.  No one is literally obligated to do so.  But I consider it good manners.


AT-AT Pilot said...

It's odd that the blogger did not respond. Your essay certainly has a friendly tone.

It may be that he does not allow links to other websites? That's what some administrators in some forums do. (I remember one administrator tell me that he edited my post because he did not want readers to go to another website.)

Oh, I was going to post this in the PSYCHO entry of your movie blog, but it seems more appropriate here since I'm also referring to comics:

Have you watched other Gus Van Sant films? I've seen some of PSYCHO and another one that I can't remember, but his movies have some resemblance to the comic books of authors like Harvey Pekar and Daniel Clowes. Both Pekar and the director attempt to create a kind of boring "reality" in their respective works--maybe emulating the "dullness" of life? I think that even the GHOST WORLD movie has a similar approach to the Van Sant films.

P.S. There is a PDF book in this link that may be of interest (scroll down), especially if you are going to write more essays on the pulp-inspired DC books.

Gene Phillips said...

Yes, it's possible that Scipio has such a policy, and that I just missed it. I jumped back to his earliest posts and didn't see any notifications of it.

I did, oddly enough, see a post that repeated the words 'semen count' over and over!

Discounting PSYCHO, I've seen four other Van Sant-directed films, and yeah, he's definitely into potraying the tedium and disaffective nausea of ordinary life.

He makes an interesting contrast with Hitchcock. Even though AH could get bleak or savage by turns, he was always aware that he was an entertainer; that he needed to give the audience something they already wanted.

Whether Van Sant is a successful "artist" or not, he certainly takes the attitude of the artist who's going to try to sell you that he has something the audience *ought* to want.